Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

[Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 11:36:00AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I really don't see what makes AI generated content so special.

The thread's become one of those jump-the-shark 'everybody + their dog
commenting' things, so risking adding more here, but...

As I said (or at least hope I did, or eventually did :) when I first raised
this on Sasha's original thread, in my MS proposal, and in review (which
Dave responded to very graciously - I think the doc is _mostly_ really
good) - I think LLMs really _are_ different in one important respect:

Submitter/maintainer asymmetry.

The issue is that people can generate sensible-looking series _EN MASSE_ that
now maintainers now HAVE to deal with.

That's the _BIG_ difference here.

With coccinelle etc. you need _some_ level of understanding of tooling
etc. to do it which acts as a barrier and maintiners submitter/maintiner
symmetry SOMEWHAT (with, err, at least one notable exception ;)

Now 'any idiot' can fire off hundreds of patches that look at a glance as
if they might have some validiity.

The asymmetry of this is VERY concerning.

I also hate that we have to think about it, but the second the press put
out 'the kernel accepts AI patches now!' - and trust me THEY WILL - we are
likely to see an influx like this that maintainers will have to deal with.

And much like the 'Linus doesn't scale' issue we hit some time ago, we
might hit a 'maintainers don't scale' issue here.

SO.

I think what we have to underline is:


1. Maintains MUST have the ability to JUST SAY NO, go away _en-masse_ to
   regain symmetry on this.

It might throw out the baby with the bath water in some cases, but it may
be a price we have to pay to avoid disaster.

Rightly people don't like BLANKET NAKS. But I think we need to be very
clear that - in this case - you might very well get them so to avoid
unworkable asymmetry.

2. Those who submit patches MUST UNDERSTAND EVERY PART OF IT.

'that which can be proposed without understanding can be dismissed without
understanding'.


I think as long as we UNDERLINE these points I think we're good.

TL;DR: we won't take slop.

Otherwise, sure, plus ca change.

Cheers, Lorenzo